342.7732 
C7é6w 


ie it Have 
_a Constitutional 
Convention 


ficers of the Constitutional League 
on page 2] 


Pamphlet prepared by 


PAUL Vr. P ayy 


Frag LT a 
(TRAOES| MoNeouNCIL> 2 2 
“Saas 


SEs Ae 


DIRECTORS. 
GEORGE E. CoLe, Chicago, 
President, 


EDWARD C. CurTIS, Grant Park, 
First Vice-President. 
CHARLES A. KARCH, Belleville, 
Second Vice-President. 
{ 
CATHARINE WAvuGH McCuLLocn, Evanston, 
Third Vice-President. 
MEDILL McCorMIcK, Chicago, 
Chairman Executive Committee. 
E. D. SHURTLEFF, Marengo. 
Mrs. SHERMAN M. BoorHu, Glencoe). 


CHARLEs F. Hurpurcu, Galesburg ‘¢ 


SIGMUND ZEISLER, Chicago. 
B. F. Harris, Champaign. 
A. D. WEINER, Chicago. 


WALTER CLYDE JONES, Chicago. — 
NoRMAN G. F'LAGe, Moro. 
F. B. JOHNSTONE, Chicago. 
WALLACE G. CLARK, Chicago. 
J. A. Farris, Urbana. Bet. % 
ADOLF KRAUS, Chicago. 


bail 
: hia 


i eens 


J 
€ 7 6 A 
ILLINOIS HEL IN CHAINS 


_ Of all the states in the Union, Illinois 
is the most hampered and restricted by 
its constitution, adopted 44 years ago and 
still but little changed. While other 
states have been progressing by bring- 
ing their fundamental law up to modern 
standards, Illinois has lagged, and now 
is far behind most of her sister common- 
- wealths. ’ 

Both friends and foes of a constitu- 

tional convention agree on this—that Illi- 
nois’ present constitution is rigid and re- 
pressive, obstructing her progress and 
staying her development. 
_ All that is asked of the people’s repre- 
sentatives in the General Assembly at 
Sptingfield is that they let the people of 
Iljinois decide by vote whether or not 
they wish a constitutional convention. 

Before the primaries and election this 
Fall, learn the position of your legisla- 
tive candidates and let them know your 
views. Nothing in the state’s history is 
of greater vital interest to yourself and 
your family than is this movement. 

‘The issue is plainly drawn—on the one 
side progress and expansion; on the other, 
standpatism and decay. 

Illinois’ lawmakers will bow to a pub- 
lic demand so overpowering that special 

. 3 


privilege and armored interests will not 
dare to raise a hand in opposition. 

This is the people’s fight. Your aid can, 
be given through discussion; by distribu- 
tion of copies of this pamphlet among 


your friends; by organization of loca} - 


Constitutional Convention Clubs, ete. 
Whether living in Chicago or “down- 
state,” Illinoisans may join hands in this 
campaign for constitutional revision with 
equal reasons of patriotism and self-inter- 
est. Chicago and other cities need home- 
rule charters, while the entire state, as a 
whole, sadly needs a modern constitution. 


WHAT IS NEEDED? 


Among the constitutional changes rf 
have been urged for many years are the 


following: } 
Shorter ballot. 
Abolition of minority representation jin 
the legislature. | 
Reorganization of the judiciary systern. 
Home rule for cities and counties in 
local matters. 
Permissible consolidation of eke 
ping local governments. ! 
Initiative, referendum and recall. __ 
Tax reform. | 
Woman suffrage, all offices. | 
Elasticity of amendment. iz 


While some of these propositions, with 
others that might be mentioned, are lof 
4 


. 


disputed value, most of them, it is gener- 
ally agreed, are desired by a great ma- 
- ajority of the people. | 
Why, then, have they not been incor- 
porated in the state’s constitution? 


4 The Root of the Trouble 


Framers of Illinois’ present constitu- 
tion, honored in their day, were so pleased 
with their handiwork that they decided 
to make it almost impossible of change. 
They “bottled” it with three “corks.” 

Cork One is the provision that the 
amendment of only one article of the con- 
stitution may be submitted to the people 
at a time (one in two years). 

Cork Two is the requirement that, be- 
fore submission to the people, the amend- 
ment resolution must receive the vote of 
two-thirds of the members of each branch 
of the legislature. 

Cork Three is the requirement that, for 
adoption, an amendment must receive a 
majority vote, not only of those voting 
on the amendment, but also of all those 
casting ballots at that election. In other 
words, those voting for any candidate for 
public office, but not voting on the amend- 
ment, are counted, in effect, as voting 
against the amendment. 

Because of these “corks,” efforts to im- 
yrove the constitution have been almost 

5 


futile. Only two amendments have been 
adopted since 1899. 7 
In recent years there has been a com-* 
plete halt in constitutional reform, partly 
—but only in part—because of warring 
interests at Springfield. . 


How the Interests Clash 


The legislature has been deadlocked. 
Some lawmakers backed initiative and 
referendum; some were for tax reform. 
As both could not be submitted at the 
same time, they killed each other off. So 
long as over one-third of the member- 
ship of either House stood out for one 
proposition, none other could be sub- 
mitted. 

This situation has permitted a plausi- 
ble argument for “temporary” sidetrack- 
ing of all other amendments in order to 
give right of way to an amendment 
which, if adopted, would permit more 
than one amendment to be submitted to 
the people at a time. 

“Then,” it is urged, “the deadlock be- 
tween I. and R. and tax reform would 
cease and both could be submitted.” 

Perhaps those who make this plea are 
ignorant of the fate of this particular 
amendment in the past and overlook the 
fact that this one change, if adopted, still 
would permit Corks Two and Three to 


“bottle” Illinois. 
6 


Twice has this same proposal to re- 

move the “one amendment restriction” 
~been submitted to the people. Each time 
it has failed to receive a majority of those 
voting at the election. In 1892, out of 
871,000 casting ballots, only 177,000, 
counting both friends and foes, voted on 
the amendment. In 1896, out of 1,090,000 
votes, only 251,000 voted on the amend- 
ment, the division being 163,000 “for” to 
88,000 “against.” 

There is no reason to warrant belief 
that a third attempt along this line would 
be more successful. The ‘96 campaign to 
“pull the cork,” meaning “Cork Number 
One,” was thoroughly organized and 
backed by a large number of civic asso- 
ciations. 

Why this lack of interest? Why didn’t 

. the people vote? 

For the very simple reason that the 
plan to “amend the amending clause” is 
and always has been such a mysterious, 
bloodless, academic, something-in-the- 
dim-future proposition that the average 
citizen has no interest in it. On a con- 
crete proposition he would be prepared 
to cast an intelligent ballot, but not on 
Sopening the door’—to what? It is but 
natural that he wants to know “to what.” 

What assurances, in fact, can anyone 
“give that, even if two or three amend- 

7 


ments could go through at the same time, 
the “bottle’s’ opening would not be 
blocked by the scramble of half a dozen?, 
As'a matter of fact, and in the light of 
confused political conditions, that is prob- 
ably exactly what would happen. © 

Even with Cork No. One out, there re- 
main Corks Two and Three, which, in 
other states, have been proven to be quite 
as efficacious in suppressing the will of 
the people at the behest of interests en- 
joying special privileges. Note Ohio’s 
case. It had no limit on the number of 
amendments; also, only three-fifths of 
each House were required to authorize 
submission to the people, yet Ohio was 
“bottled” as effectually as Illinois—until 
it got its constitutional convention of emi- 
nent men, who framed its present con- 
stitution, adopted last year. 

Further, there is no legal reason why 
any one proposed amendment, even this 
amendment to amend the amending 
clause, should not be submitted to the 
people at the same time as the constitu- 
tional convention resolution. Though the 
advocates of the I. and R., tax reform and 
“amending the amending clause” tear 
each other’s throats at Springfield, they 
may consistently unite in voting for "a 
constitutional convention. The thinking 
voter will be suspicious of the legislatiye 

8 


candidate who backs any single proposed 
amendment while opposed to a constitu- 
tional convention. 

It can be set down that he is “taking 
orders.” 


’ Convention Is Quickest Way 


Illinois would secure its needed re- 
forms more quickly by a constitutional 
convention than it possibly could in any 
other way. These tables tell why. 


By a Corivention 


Resolution for convention to be 
adopted by legislature in....1915 
Submission to voters at general 
election in Autumn of...... 1916 
Legislature would provide for 
convention at its session of. .1917 
Election for choosing delegates, 
Baye uly Ofs have. sl estes 917 
Convention could convene in Fall 
Sarr ne et So, WR ate is 1917 
Submission of draft to people in 
BOUIOLOL far. ake cee hak so sce 1918 


By “Pulling the Cork” 
Legislature might vote to pull 


oC erie IN Oued bye ie re ecu ais 1915 
Submission to people in Novem- 
PCTS gti e a0 eal svete ayaa “2s 5% 1916 


If adopted, legislature might vote 
to submit proposed amend- 
ments at its session of........ 1917 
Such amendments would be sub- 
mitted to people at election in 
APES Ln Se a ei a 1918 


In other words, a start at patching 
would take more time than a thorough 
revision of the constitution by the mosi* 
eminent and best qualified men Illinois 
could find for the work. Moreover, there 
could be no assurance even of patching, iF 
attempted. Remember, that Ohio, and 
other states, too, could not do patching 
under similar but more favorable con- 
ditions. a 


OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 


Objection No. One.—“With politics in 
chaos, it would be difficult to elect a good 
convention.” 

Those advancing this argument, stale 
with thirty years of repetition, disre- 
gard, or pretend to be ignorant of the 
fact that Illinois’ legislature has the pow- 
er to require that delegates to a consti- 
tutional convention be elected in non- 
partisan procedure—not as Democrats, 
Progressives, Republicans or other party 
men, but after nomination by petition, 
with their names under no party label. 
Thus, voters would choose from among 
the candidates according to qualifications, 
not because of the party badge. Ohto_ 
worked out her salvation in this way-r. 
Voters showed remarkable discrimina- 
tion at the polls. Illinois’ voters are just 
as intelligent as Ohio’s. € 

10 


Moreover, judging from what has hap- 

pened in other states and what is prob- 
sable when the people face the emergency, 
voters will be ready and anxious to dis- 
regard party lines in order to send to the 
convention the very highest class of citi- 
zens to be found and who may be in- 
duced to be candidates. 

Objection Two.—“Until a readjustment 
comes in politics, no convention could be 
elected of much higher grade than the 
legislature itself.” 

All experience, in this and other states, 
indicates that this objection is pure bunk. 
Members of a constitutional convention 
would be elected without cumulative vot- 
ing, two from each senatorial district, by 
direct vote of the people, for the honor- 
able, serious and specific purpose of 
drafting a constitution. 

Evidence of the probable abandonment 
of party lines is indicated by the member- 
ship of the Constitutional Convention 
League, whose council and _ directors 
are representative of all parties and al- 
most all factions—of radical, moderate 
and conservative opinion. 

Objection Three—“A convention 
ywould let down the bars to every new 
political idea.” 

Proposed amendments that have been 
ymmost widely discussed number about 

11 


twenty and cover only about ten desired 
reforms. Still wider discussion would in- 
tervene before the convention met in 1917,«. 
or later. It would be a reasonable fore- 
cast of procedure to assume that the more 
radical amendments, when drafted, woulde 
be submitted to popular vote separately, 
even if the Ohio method, in which the 
people voted separately upon each and 
every proposed amendment, were not fol- 
lowed in Illinois. 

Nor let us forget, in fairness, that the 
bars already are down for the submission 
of any amendment, however radical, that 
may meet the legislature’s approval. 
Surely no sane and patriotic citizen would 
urge Illinois to wait until every advance 
step in constitutional reform had been 
taken and tested by the experience of 
years in other or many other states. IIli- 
nois might better be a leader than a lag- 
gard. 

Objection Four.—“‘A new constitution 
would sweep away 43 years of Supreme 
Court decisions interpreting the present 
constitution. The work of the courts 
must start all over again.” 

Note that this objection is not advanced 
by reputable lawyers who are authorities. 
on constitutional law. 

It is a gross exaggeration, a bogey man 
of straw. It is certain that a conventiots 

12 


would conserve much of the Supreme 
Court’s past labors. Many of the pro- 
_,posed amendments would need no judi- 
cial interpretation—for instance, to se- 
cure full woman suffrage, it would be 
jmecessary merely to strike out the word 
“male” in describing a voter. 

Moreover, if this objection were sound, 
it would become stronger each year. Are 
we never to have a constitutional revi- 
sion? If we are, the quicker we get it, the 
weaker is the objection. 

Objection Five.—‘“Jealousy between 
‘downstate’ and ‘city,’ with the certainty 
that ‘downstate’ would insist upon re- 
stricted legislative representation for 
Cook County, possibly without giving 
Chicago ‘home rule’ in return.” 

It is true that the majority of both 
Houses at Springfield, representing 
“downstate” districts, fear the time when 
Chicago’s growth in population, on a re- 
apportionment of districts, may give that 
city a majority of both lawmaking 
branches. On the other hand, Chicago- 
ans object to a discrimination giving their 
city less than its proportionate represen- 
tation in the legislature. 

George E. Cole, president of the Con- 
‘stitutional Convention League, though 
himself a Chicagoan, has suggested a 
,compromise. He would limit the num- 

13 


ber of Cook County’s senators to two- 
fifths of the whole, but would continue 
to apportion the membership of the | 
Lower House according to population. 
Thereby, Chicago and Cook County’s 
growth in population never would give 
the “big city” control of the legislature. 

A constitutional convention may be re- 
lied upon to work out a reasonable com- 
promise satisfactory to the entire state. 
Meanwhile, because of the jealousy be- 
tween “city” and “downstate,” the every- 
ten-years’ reapportionment of congres- 
sional and legislative districts required 
by Illinois’ constitution is four years over- 
due, with no action in near prospect. In 
effect, therefore, there is already in opera- 
tion a restriction of Chicago’s legisla- 
tive representation, since reapportion- 
ment on a population basis would give 
Cook County two additional senatorial 
districts. 

Too much of the legislature’s time is 
taken up in lawmaking that applies only 
to Chicago. That city, along with other 
cities of the state, seeks authority to gov- 
ern itself in local matters. Surely, here is 
the basis for a reasonable adjustment sat- 


isfactory to the entire state. 
P> 


14 


Objection Six.—“Why kick over our. 

present constitution? It contains much 
that is good.” 
* This is the silliest plea of all, but is the 
most widely circulated by the insidious 
--canization working under cover to 
block constitutional revision. You see, it 
is so easy to “pass along” this little 
“knock.” 

The simple answer is that no advo- 
cate of a constitutional convention ever 
had in mind the discarding of Illinois’ 
present constitution as a whole. If this 
earth travels around the sun, then it is 
equally certain that the present constitu- 
tion’s framework and its every section of 
sound yalue, from the nobly worded pre- 
amble to the end of the final article, will 
be retained for the new constitution. 


The People Must Decide 


Let us all remember that no constitu- 
tional convention can “put anything 
over” on the people. No constitution, 
whether submitted as a whole or in sep- 
arate amendments, can become Illinois’ 
fundamental law unless a majority of the 
voters are willing. 

A convention merely may draft; the 
ple must decide. They are the jurors 
e supremest of all courts, from 
there shall be no appeal. 


15 


301120 


Fe ee 


2 
ai 
Bie 
is 


The person charging this material is re- 
sponsible for its return on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 


Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
result in dismissal from the University. 


University of Illinois Library 


L161— O-1096 


